Sources of Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Ligament and Tendon Tissue Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tendon and ligament injuries are common, and repair slowly with reduced biomechanical properties. With increasing financial demands on the health service and patients to recover from tendon and ligament injuries faster, and with less morbidity, health professionals are exploring new treatment options. Tissue engineering may provide the answer, with its unlimited source of natural cells that in the correct environment may improve repair and regeneration of tendon and ligament tissue. Mesenchymal stem cells have demonstrated the ability to self renew and have multilineage differentiation potential. The use of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells has been reported, however significant in vitro culture expansion is required due to the low yield of cells, which has financial implications. Harvesting of bone marrow cells also has associated morbidity. Several studies have looked at alternative sources for mesenchymal stem cells. Reports in literature from animal studies have been encouraging, however further work is required. This review assesses the potential sources of mesenchymal stem cells for tissue engineering in tendons and ligaments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".